Hinterlands: Skirmish Campaigns in the Mortal Realms

[Kramer]

Quick question for everyone. Yesterday I introduced a friend to Hinterlands and had three amazingly fun games. But one thing came up. I always assumed the Chaos command trait 'Lord of War' could also affect the general himself. My mate was quite happy to accept that (him playing skaven) but I'm curious to see how everyone interprets this ability. 

Thanks!

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, Kramer said:

Quick question for everyone. Yesterday I introduced a friend to Hinterlands and had three amazingly fun games. But one thing came up. I always assumed the Chaos command trait 'Lord of War' could also affect the general himself. My mate was quite happy to accept that (him playing skaven) but I'm curious to see how everyone interprets this ability. 

Thanks!

The main AoS rules received a FAQ in which it was confirmed that a model is always in range of itself for the purposes of command abilities and such, so based on that I would say that Lord of War can affect the general. But @bottle may choose to rule the other way if it creates balance issues.

[Kramer]

2 minutes ago, Jamie the Jasper said:

The main AoS rules received a FAQ in which it was confirmed that a model is always in range of itself for the purposes of command abilities and such, so based on that I would say that Lord of War can affect the general. But @bottle may choose to rule the other way if it creates balance issues.

No it really didn't. But good to know about the FAQ. Now you mention it I remember reading it a while back. Time to re-read it apparently

[Kramer]

On 26-4-2017 at 11:27 AM, Jamie the Jasper said:

The main AoS rules received a FAQ in which it was confirmed that a model is always in range of itself for the purposes of command abilities and such, so based on that I would say that Lord of War can affect the general. But @bottle may choose to rule the other way if it creates balance issues.

The more I think about it, the more I think I will house rule it the next time (same for destruction). The difference is minimal but I like that all alliance generals get the choice between being more in support or boosting their own skill. ?

[hellalugosi]

Ive been playtesting with Asymetrical battleplan generation, in line with me trying to make content for one off battles and am looking to try them out this weekend, heres what i have so far:

DESTINED ENCOUNTER

Set up: each player rolls 1d6. The result of these rolls will assign objectives to the player. In the future ill be adding allegiance specific choices so that a warband can decide to roll or choose the objective thats available to them.

1. Sacred artifact: place an objectice marker within 6 inches of the center of the board. When one of your models moves over this marker, you may pick it up and complete your movement. You drop this if you are slain. Place this within 3" of the slain model immediately. Starting from round 3, If you end your turn within 3" of the edge of the board, you win the battle.

2. Liberate: your opponent places an objective marker (or a model set on its side to represent a hostage!) in their territory, atleast 6" away from the edges of the board. Starting from round 3, At the end of any turn if you have a unit within 3" of the marker and no enemy models within 3", you win the battleplan.

3. For Glory: slay the enemy general while your general is within 6" of them. You immediately win the battle. 

4. Raiding Party: roll a die for each friendly unit within 3" of a piece of terrain at the end of any of your turns. On a 4, that piece of terrain is removed from the battle. Once you have destroyed more than 50% of terrain, you win the battle. If both players get this objective, then set up one player as the defender, they win if by the end of 5 rounds, the raiding party has not completed the objective.

5. Conquest: set up a marker in the center of the board. If by the end of 5 rounds, you have more models within 6" than your opponent, you win the battle.

6. Caravan: place an objetive marker (try using a cavalry base or a mounted model or vehicle) within 3" of the edge of your side of table. Roll a dice for every friendly unit within 6" of this marker at the end of your turn. Pick at a maximum of 3 of these dice results and move the marker forward that many inches. If this marker is within 6" of your opponenrs board edge at the end of the turn, you win the battle.

 

So there you have it, ill try to balance these when i play this weekend, any thoughts guys? Would Love some feedback.

 

[hellalugosi]

So while i'm still going to be testing the battleplan generator, i've cooked up a battleplan to try out this week with my club.

Enjoy!

[hellalugosi]

I've got two battleplans to try out! I'm trying to be as thematic as possible!

 

[Tulkas]

Hey folks, I was wondering what do you consider a "Monster"? Looking over the webstore, the only Monsters I see are creatures I seriously don't expect to see in games of Hinterlands, unless for a special occasion. So I'm wondering if "Monster" should perhaps be re-classified to include creatures with a higher than average (heros?) number of wounds. I mean, why should a Rat-Ogre reward the same amount of experience as a Clanrat? There's alot more work going into killing the former! 

Alternatively, I guess this could be worked out by awarding these creatures the same amount of experience we get for killing Heroes instead (as alot of the +Wound models have near/ above heroic abilities). With HL 2.2 the step for levels dropped by one, and heroes start at level 4. We played a game earlier today (me against, you guessed it, Skaven) and I argued the point with my buddy that perhaps his lvl 4 Rat Ogre (it's got some experience already, so it's at lvl 4 right now) should perhaps award 10 experience, just like his other lvl 4 hero models.

Has anyone else encountered this at all? Would love to hear from you guys what your take on this is. Also, it's 1.15 AM right now so if this post makes little sense, please take this into account and ask me for clarification tomorrow  

[hellalugosi]

34 minutes ago, Tulkas said:

Hey folks, I was wondering what do you consider a "Monster"? Looking over the webstore, the only Monsters I see are creatures I seriously don't expect to see in games of Hinterlands, unless for a special occasion. So I'm wondering if "Monster" should perhaps be re-classified to include creatures with a higher than average (heros?) number of wounds. I mean, why should a Rat-Ogre reward the same amount of experience as a Clanrat? There's alot more work going into killing the former! 

Alternatively, I guess this could be worked out by awarding these creatures the same amount of experience we get for killing Heroes instead (as alot of the +Wound models have near/ above heroic abilities). With HL 2.2 the step for levels dropped by one, and heroes start at level 4. We played a game earlier today (me against, you guessed it, Skaven) and I argued the point with my buddy that perhaps his lvl 4 Rat Ogre (it's got some experience already, so it's at lvl 4 right now) should perhaps award 10 experience, just like his other lvl 4 hero models.

Has anyone else encountered this at all? Would love to hear from you guys what your take on this is. Also, it's 1.15 AM right now so if this post makes little sense, please take this into account and ask me for clarification tomorrow  

Honestly id love to just flat out consider a models health = to their starting level. Id also like it if a models health is just capped at 3 wounds to start, that way heroes and tough elites like kurnoths are just balanced. However i think the exp scale would have to be changed a bit to reflect this.

 

[hellalugosi]

I've decided to undertake the difficult task of creating full allegiance pages for many of the factions starting with the Fyreslayers and the Ironjawz. Input on what you guys would like to see next would be helpful! Maybe i should pack all this content up as an expansion pack when I'm done?

I'm definitely trying to keep the pages in line with simplicity such as (two command traits per allegiance), while still offering some fun new faction specific things.

Here we have the fyreslayers, who can definitely benefit from movement buffs, as well as more things for the priests to do.

I wanted to do something different for the ironjawz, and thought that hinterlands was a perfect place for the Warchanter to shine on his own. 

He gets a lore of "Rhythms"  

like i said, any suggestions for what people wanna see done?

 

Edit: i already see some typos and things i need to clarify! i'll get those fixed soon 

Edited May 6, 2017 by hellalugosi

[Tulkas]

14 hours ago, hellalugosi said:

I've decided to undertake the difficult task of creating full allegiance pages for many of the factions starting with the Fyreslayers and the Ironjawz. Input on what you guys would like to see next would be helpful! Maybe i should pack all this content up as an expansion pack when I'm done?

I'm definitely trying to keep the pages in line with simplicity such as (two command traits per allegiance), while still offering some fun new faction specific things.

Here we have the fyreslayers, who can definitely benefit from movement buffs, as well as more things for the priests to do.

I wanted to do something different for the ironjawz, and thought that hinterlands was a perfect place for the Warchanter to shine on his own. 

He gets a lore of "Rhythms"  

like i said, any suggestions for what people wanna see done?

 

Edit: i already see some typos and things i need to clarify! i'll get those fixed soon 

Sweet! I like the idea of smaller, faction specific traits! These two look really great and except for the wording, there's nothing I would really change. The thing I mean by this is: I would change the wording in "Fireforged Feet" (last sentence) to: ...on a result of 3 or higher, this model may immediately move as if it were the movement phase. It may then move again in the movement phase." (or however they exactly phrase it in the battletomes with similar abilities). The same I would write in MO'MORKSTIKK: On a result of 3 or higher, this model may immediately pile in as if it were the combat phase. It may choose to do so again in the Combat phase". I think it adds a little more power to the ability and a little more flexibility (as the effect is used in two different phases instead all in one). Ofcourse, I would love to hear what the rest of this thread's subscribers think about my suggestion (and if it would be too powerful or not).

 

ON WOUNDS BEING A MODEL'S STARTING LEVEL

Played another battle against my buddy's Skaven today and the subject arose again. I really like the idea of a model's level being equal to it's starting wounds. I'm going to do a little online research and try and find the "average" woundage of the various higher wound models (Kurnoth Hunters, various Ogroids, Khorgoraths, etc). I'll get back to you on this.

[Tulkas]

Reading it again, I think I find the Ironjawz Command abilities quite powerful. I love the Fyreslayer ones though!

[Taffin]

@hellalugosi Battle plans look like tons of fun. Those Ironjawz Command abilities are very powerful. Personally I would change the IRONJAWZ IS DA BEST! to affect only models in 6" range in the combat phase.

I also was thinking of a different experience and advancement system.  The one we have know is not bad, but after a few games with my buddies some patterns emerged. My group consists of 4 players. We started the game before the Second Role Of Three and decided to play without it. One particular Skaven warband with lots of magic and shooting is almost unbeatable. They take out other warbands at range and each kill gives them exp and makes them stronger and stronger to the point that even the owning player admitted is not fun any more. Did anyone experienced similar issues or is it just us? Then we started talking about the system in SW: Armageddon. It lacks in therms of "role-playing" but keeps kill teams with the same mission count more or less even.

What do you think? Is anyone interested in an alternative system? I will be more than happy to write one down for you to critique and comment.

 

[hellalugosi]

4 hours ago, Tulkas said:

Sweet! I like the idea of smaller, faction specific traits! These two look really great and except for the wording, there's nothing I would really change. The thing I mean by this is: I would change the wording in "Fireforged Feet" (last sentence) to: ...on a result of 3 or higher, this model may immediately move as if it were the movement phase. It may then move again in the movement phase." (or however they exactly phrase it in the battletomes with similar abilities). The same I would write in MO'MORKSTIKK: On a result of 3 or higher, this model may immediately pile in as if it were the combat phase. It may choose to do so again in the Combat phase". I think it adds a little more power to the ability and a little more flexibility (as the effect is used in two different phases instead all in one). Ofcourse, I would love to hear what the rest of this thread's subscribers think about my suggestion (and if it would be too powerful or not).

 

ON WOUNDS BEING A MODEL'S STARTING LEVEL

Played another battle against my buddy's Skaven today and the subject arose again. I really like the idea of a model's level being equal to it's starting wounds. I'm going to do a little online research and try and find the "average" woundage of the various higher wound models (Kurnoth Hunters, various Ogroids, Khorgoraths, etc). I'll get back to you on this.

Yeah now that i think of it, these would be more exciting if they were in the hero phase, less status effects to keep track of as well.

I'm working on a page for the seraphon right now, so ill put up the edits at the same time. I'm starting to think wounds = level is a easy compromise, as long as it goes hand in hand with a way of averaging out wounds, which is why i think a cap of 3 to start with would make the games more enjoyable. I'll put my suggestion for an alternative exp scale below.

2 hours ago, Tulkas said:

Reading it again, I think I find the Ironjawz Command abilities quite powerful. I love the Fyreslayer ones though!

I'm definitely going to change the first one to it to within 6" haha! As for the Biggest Boss, ill have to play with it, but i think its okay as it requires a model kill first. And because we've taken away the destruction command trait for ironjaws specific ones, they have to work harder to get into combat.

1 hour ago, Taffin said:

@hellalugosi Battle plans look like tons of fun. Those Ironjawz Command abilities are very powerful. Personally I would change the IRONJAWZ IS DA BEST! to affect only models in 6" range in the combat phase.

I also was thinking of a different experience and advancement system.  The one we have know is not bad, but after a few games with my buddies some patterns emerged. My group consists of 4 players. We started the game before the Second Role Of Three and decided to play without it. One particular Skaven warband with lots of magic and shooting is almost unbeatable. They take out other warbands at range and each kill gives them exp and makes them stronger and stronger to the point that even the owning player admitted is not fun any more. Did anyone experienced similar issues or is it just us? Then we started talking about the system in SW: Armageddon. It lacks in therms of "role-playing" but keeps kill teams with the same mission count more or less even.

What do you think? Is anyone interested in an alternative system? I will be more than happy to write one down for you to critique and comment.

 

As stated above, i like your suggestion to make it 6", so ill make it that.

I think personally it'd be easier to give a cap of advancements, reduce the injury chances, and make it so each battle you can only upgrade few models after the battle. Its more narrow, but its way less swingy, which is my problem now, where a player has a kurnoth hunter with like 6 wounds, 2 up hits, and 7 movement or something, but hes lost every battle objective wise. 

Here's my suggestions for a campaign overhaul.

INJURIES

1 : Severe Injury (-d3 wounds, if lost all wounds, model is retired)

2-5 : Recovered

6 : Character Event (at which point the character gains an advancement and the player makes up a heroic story or nickname etc)

Sure, its less detailed, but i think it will save warbands from getting completely destroyed by warbands with killy models, and being forced to remake a warband.

ADVANCEMENTS

I'm going to say it here first. I don't like experience per kills. I think its too one sided and avalanches easily. I propose that it be replaced with a simple advancement system. After each battle the winner will be granted D3 advancements, and the loser will receive 1 advancement. Keeping track of which models has which amount of kills and what it has killed has gotten cumbersome during the games unfortunately.

The players are free to decide which of their models gains the advancement, relying on developing interesting stories to reason why the character got the advancement and whatnot. During the advancement phase, you will apply these advancements, rolling on the advancement table similar to the one already included in the packet. You can not advance a character more than once in this phase, so you can't stack all the level ups on one model per phase. This means you can gradually see your warband get powerful, as opposed to MASSIVELY STRONG or CRIPPLINGLY WEAK. 

Here is a table i would suggest we use

1 : Wound +1

2: Save +1

3: Move +1

4: Weapon Skill +1 (pick weapon, your choice which stat, from range/to hit/to wound)

5: Weapon Quality +1 (pick weapon, your choice which stat (apply or increase Rend/damage)

6: Your choice of advancement.

Its simpler with a little more freedom, of course. I also would prefer that you can only upgrade a statistic of any kind once. So you'll only become slightly stronger than your baseline, and i think that'll be more balanced.

LEVELS

Each advancement means you've leveled up your model. You may only level up a model up to level 10. (which in turn means a model can only take advancements if they can go up a level) A model's starting level is their starting amount of wounds. Models with the HERO keyword always start at 5 as it is now, and any models with health higher than 3 wounds, start their wounds at 3. So from the get go, all models on the table at the beginning of a campaign have a fairly good chance of being slain. 

UNDERDOG VALUE

So this might be random, but i'd suggest we just go off the total combined levels of every model in the warband. Im not sure if that would work well, but I want to try it!

also while i'm working on all these battleplans and allegiance abilities and what not, i think i'm going to have to make a whole new thread so i can keep the content on the front page of that.

 

Edited May 7, 2017 by hellalugosi

[bottle]

Hey everyone, I am back from the dead. Job application all done and dusted. I'm going to catch up on this thread nowbecause it looks like everyone has had a burst of creativity and created lots of cool ideas. 

I wanted to ask if everyone is excited for AoS Skirmish? I know I am! I think it's going to be great to get an officially endorsed version of skirmish style play we love - everyone who is making stuff for Hinterlands, I hope you continue to make the same add-ons for AoS Skirmish too. I'm going to try and make every aspect of Hinterlands fully compatible with AoS Skirimish and so hopefully that will mean everything you guys make will also be compatible with everything too. 

Now we just need to wait to get our hands on the rules!!  

[Taffin]

8 minutes ago, hellalugosi said:

INJURIES

1 : Severe Injury (-d3 wounds, if lost all wounds, model is retired)

2-5 : Recovered

6 : Character Event (at which point the character gains an advancement and the player makes up a heroic story or nickname etc)

Sure, its less detailed, but i think it will save warbands from getting completely destroyed by warbands with killy models, and being forced to remake a warband.

ADVANCEMENTS

I'm going to say it here first. I don't like experience per kills. I think its too one sided and avalanches easily. I propose that it be replaced with a simple advancement system. After each battle the winner will be granted D3 advancements, and the loser will receive 1 advancement. Keeping track of which models has which amount of kills and what it has killed has gotten cumbersome during the games unfortunately.

The players are free to decide which of their models gains the advancement, relying on developing interesting stories to reason why the character got the advancement and whatnot. During the advancement phase, you will apply these advancements, rolling on the advancement table similar to the one already included in the packet. You can not advance a character more than once in this phase, so you can't stack all the level ups on one model per phase. This means you can gradually see your warband get powerful, as opposed to MASSIVELY STRONG or CRIPPLINGLY WEAK. 

Here is a table i would suggest we use

1 : Wound +1

2: Save +1

3: Move +1

4: Weapon Skill +1 (pick weapon, your choice which stat, from range/to hit/to wound)

5: Weapon Quality +1 (pick weapon, your choice which stat (apply or increase Rend/damage)

6: Your choice of advancement.

Its simpler with a little more freedom, of course. I also would prefer that you can only upgrade a statistic of any kind once. So you'll only become slightly stronger than your baseline, and i think that'll be more balanced.

LEVELS

Each advancement means you've leveled up your model. You may only level up a model a maximum of 10 times. (which in turn means a model can only take advancements if they can go up a level) A model's starting level is their starting amount of wounds. Models with the HERO keyword always start at 5 as it is now, and any models with health higher than 3 wounds, start their wounds at 3. So from the get go, all models on the table at the beginning of a campaign have a fairly good chance of being slain. 

UNDERDOG VALUE

So this might be random, but i'd suggest we just go off the total combined levels of every model in the warband. Im not sure if that would work well, but I want to try it!

@hellalugosi I have very similar thoughts and ideas. This is how I see it:

INJURIES

1 - major injury: fighter looses D3 wounds. If looses all wounds retire the model. If not "killed" misses next battle.
2 - minor injury: fighter misses next battle
3-5 - full recovery
6 - what doesn't kill you, makes you stranger: roll D6 and on a 6 fighter gets +1 wound

ADVANCEMENTS

 

After each battle players get a number of experience points to divide between their fighters. To advance a fighter player must pay a number of exp points equal to new level (to promote a fighter to lvl3 3 points are needed, lvl4 needs 4 points and so on). You have to advance one level at a time and only one level between battles. When a fighter is promoted you can pick one advancement from the list. One fighter can not pick the same advancement twice, that's why some effects are listed twice. Max level is still 10

+1 Wound
+1 Wound
+1 Save
+1" Move
+1" Move
+1 casting/unbinding
+1 To Hit for one weapon
+1 To Wound for one weapon
+1 Damage for one weapon
-1 Rend for one weapon

I'm still thinking how to adjust number of exp points after the battle. Maybe 5 points for both and +D3 for the winner?

STARTING LEVEL AND MUSTERING YOUR WARBAND

All models start at a level equal to their wounds including Heroes. Heroes also keep their wounds but cost full price. Starting funds are increased to 200 gold to compensate. Maybe gold rewards for Battleplans also should be increased?

UNDERDOG RATING

Compare both combined gold cost of all models put on the table and combined exp level. When comparing gold value ignore difference of 10 or less. There are two rewards for the Underdog. One roll on Underdog Gambits table or extra experience points.  

If one player is outmatched in one regard and equal in other than that player can choose either to roll for Underdog Gambits or gets 3 exp points instead D3 for winning the battle

If one player is outmatched in both gold and exp level of his warband he gets both rewards.

If one player has more gold on the battlefield and other player has higher exp level, players can decide that neither gets a bonus or both get a bonus (Underdog Gambit for cheaper warband, extra exp for having lower exp level).

 

I know that full health Heroes seem scary but maintaining their cost will prevent hero-spam. Also high wound heroes will be more expensive to advance and will have less advancements. Heroes aren't unkillable. In my country is a saying witch I try to translate without butchering it: Even Hrecules is an ass when attacked by enemies in mass.

What do you think? Are any ideas any good?

[bottle]

Wow some radical ideas! Full health heroes sound scary because of how much focus they need from grunts to be able to take them down. For hinterlands I always wanted a system where a lone moonclan archer or Freeguild crossbowmen could have a meaningful impact on the game, but I would think they'd be outclassed completey by 5/6 wound heroes.

I think what's going to be most interesting is seeing how AoS Skirmish works and then going from there. They might have half wound heroes or they might have a much stricter cap on heroes (perhaps even a limit of 1 per Warband).

I really like the changes to experience you guys are suggesting. I'll be picking up my copy of Shadow War tomorrow and I am keen to look at the system they have introduced. My experience system is a copy paste of old GW skirmish games and I think giving it a more modern update is a great idea. I like both of your suggestions and will need to play with the both a bit.  

[Taffin]

4 minutes ago, bottle said:

Wow some radical ideas! Full health heroes sound scary because of how much focus they need from grunts to be able to take them down. For hinterlands I always wanted a system where a lone moonclan archer or Freeguild crossbowmen could have a meaningful impact on the game, but I would think they'd be outclassed completey by 5/6 wound heroes.

Yes that sounds scary and you are probably right nerfing Heroes. On the other hand if I take a Hero for 140g and three other dudes I'm fielding a warband that can be outmanoeuvred by more numerous foe and lose the mission. And when the aim of the mission is to kill the Hero, conditions can be adjusted to make it  fair fight.

My reasoning behind this was as follows: point value of a single model i calculated with regard to all its stats and abilities; halving the wounds does not necessary mean that the model should be half price; all other models keep theirs stats and point/gold cost in balance as designed; halving wounds an cost for heroes distorts balance making some non-hero models more efficient.

 

13 minutes ago, bottle said:

I think what's going to be most interesting is seeing how AoS Skirmish works and then going from there. They might have half wound heroes or they might have a much stricter cap on heroes (perhaps even a limit of 1 per Warband).

I'm also very interested how the rule set will look like. Any words on the release date? Capping Heroes to 1 per warband an forcing him/her to be the leader is not that bad idea.

Just had a thought. How about adding another layer of role playing and have wizards buy magical components for their spells, or fighters buy arrows and bullets for their missile weapons? Calculate the cost of magical aids from casting value of a spell, or a cost of a single arrow from number of wounds it can cause (better arrow heads cost money and you have to take more of them if you can shoot more than once). I know that adds complexity and forces player to keep track of every shot and every spell, but can be fun.

[hellalugosi]

@bottle

I like how it is now and im very much behind making heroes equivalent to numerous weaker models. Making them full strength i think is just too overpowered. I think the missions should help reflect balance between few models vs many models as @Taffin mentioned.  

Im super excited for AOS skirmish and im definitely going to convert my content to match with it when it launches. However, until then, ive been super into Hinterlands.

If you both haven't seen my thread  Allegiances and More for Hinterlands i'm attempting to create a general's handbook of sorts, with seperate ways to approach hinterlands. Like i've mentioned before in the thread, i play a lot of pick up and play games, and my club forms a narrative on the spot, since many of us don't have the schedule to commit to a full campaign. I think carrying over the "three ways to play" motto would be a good idea for hinterlands.

OPEN

Multiplayer

Freeform warband building

More random additions to make each game different

Simple battleplans for jumping into the game

NARRATiVE

Campaigns

Thematic and Asymetrical Battleplans

Structure as a guideline, and not a definitive

MATCHED

Balanced battleplans 

warband customization options 

matched structure 

battlefield roles like GHB

 

[bottle]

9 hours ago, Taffin said:

Just had a thought. How about adding another layer of role playing and have wizards buy magical components for their spells, or fighters buy arrows and bullets for their missile weapons? Calculate the cost of magical aids from casting value of a spell, or a cost of a single arrow from number of wounds it can cause (better arrow heads cost money and you have to take more of them if you can shoot more than once). I know that adds complexity and forces player to keep track of every shot and every spell, but can be fun.

This was something I was hoping to add to version 3. I actually have a load of potions and scrolls that I made (specifically for the Realm Master's Campaign).

I think if AoS Skirmish is capped to 1 hero it could be a great way of being able to customise your hero. There could be a series of weapons and shields/armour too for more fighty heroes.

This is also something Bruticus from the AoS28 group mentioned to me that those players would love to be able to build their own heroes or at least customise them some more. So once AoS Skirmish drops I definitely will look to including this sort of thing in the next update  

[bottle]

2 hours ago, hellalugosi said:

@bottle

I like how it is now and im very much behind making heroes equivalent to numerous weaker models. Making them full strength i think is just too overpowered. I think the missions should help reflect balance between few models vs many models as @Taffin mentioned.  

Im super excited for AOS skirmish and im definitely going to convert my content to match with it when it launches. However, until then, ive been super into Hinterlands.

If you both haven't seen my thread  Allegiances and More for Hinterlands i'm attempting to create a general's handbook of sorts, with seperate ways to approach hinterlands. Like i've mentioned before in the thread, i play a lot of pick up and play games, and my club forms a narrative on the spot, since many of us don't have the schedule to commit to a full campaign. I think carrying over the "three ways to play" motto would be a good idea for hinterlands.

OPEN

Multiplayer

Freeform warband building

More random additions to make each game different

Simple battleplans for jumping into the game

NARRATiVE

Campaigns

Thematic and Asymetrical Battleplans

Structure as a guideline, and not a definitive

MATCHED

Balanced battleplans 

warband customization options 

matched structure 

battlefield roles like GHB

 

I'm loving everything you are working on, and a GHB style pack sounds epic if not daunting! I think adding more content for pick-up games is a great idea, a must in fact. I will also give it some thought but I am excited to see what you come up with, man.

[someone2040]

In terms of making your own heroes.

One thing I was considering for my own 'skirmish' style game which was closer to Mordheim was some kind of profile combination.

Your race would have base stats for Wounds, Save, Movement, Bravery. But would have modifier stats for attacks, hit, wound, rend and damage. 

Armour would either impose a special rule,  stat modifiers or both.

Weapons would generally have their own weapon profile agnostic of who is wielding them.

 

So the following might make sense:

Human (Chaos or Order variants) - Wounds: 1 Save 6+ Movement: 5" Bravery 5 No modifiers

Stormcast - Wounds: 2 Save 5+ Movement 5" Bravery 6 +1 to hit with melee weapons, +1 to hit with ranged weapons, +1 attack with melee weapons

Chaos Warrior - Wounds 2, Save 5+, Movement 5", Bravery 6, +1 to hit with melee weapons, +1 attack with melee weapons

Orruk - Wounds: 2, Save 6+, Movement 5", Bravery 4, -1 to hit with ranged weapons, +1 rend with melee weapons

Aelf - Wounds: 1, Save 6+, Movement: 6", Bravery 6, +1 to hit with melee weapons, +1 to hit with ranged weapons

Duardin - Wounds 1, Save 5+, Movement 4", Bravery 6, +1 to hit with melee weapons

Armour - +1 to your armour save characteristic

Heavy Armour - +2 to your armour save

Stormcast Paladin Armour - +2 armour save, -1 movement (Stormcast Only)

Shield - Re-roll 1's to save

Bow Hit Attack 1,  4+, Wound 4+, Rend -, Damage 1

Unarmed Attack 1, Hit 5+, Wound 5+, Rend +1, Damage 1

Sword Attack 1, Hit 4+, Wound 4+, Rend -, Damage 1

Axe Attack 1, Hit 5+, Wound 4+, Rend -1, Damage 1

Hammer Attack 1, Hit 5+, Wound 3+, Rend -, Damage 1

Dagger Attack 1, Hit 5+, Wound 5+, Rend -, Damage 1

 

So an Orruk profile with a Bow, Sword (Choppa) and Armour merged together would have the following warscroll:

Wounds: 2, Armour Save: 5+, Bravery 4, Movement 5"

Bow Attack 1, Hit 5+, Wound 4+, Rend -, Damage 1

Sword Attack 1, Hit 4+, Wound 4+, Rend -1, Damage 1

Looks pretty much like an Orruk right? (Maybe a pretty boring and plain Orruk who doesn't have any special rules at this time).

 

I like it because it gives you more stats to play around with. More stats means you can do more interesting things with skills. And at the end of the day, this always results in a warscroll that can be used in game. You can upgrade your weaponry (or change weaponry), as you just need to re-combine your character profile with your new equipment profiles.

 

Also, the above stats are more for your regular mobs. You could create heroic profiles, but I actually think a more fun and interesting way is to allow heroes to get access to a certain number of upgrades. You could even go full DnD style, roll for a X upgrades, and pick Y of them. 

Edited May 8, 2017 by someone2040

[Teletomas]

29 minutes ago, someone2040 said:

In terms of making your own heroes.

One thing I was considering for my own 'skirmish' style game which was closer to Mordheim was some kind of profile combination.

Your race would have base stats for Wounds, Save, Movement, Bravery. But would have modifier stats for attacks, hit, wound, rend and damage. 

Armour would either impose a special rule,  stat modifiers or both.

Weapons would generally have their own weapon profile agnostic of who is wielding them.

 

So the following might make sense:

Human (Chaos or Order variants) - Wounds: 1 Save 6+ Movement: 5" Bravery 5 No modifiers

Stormcast - Wounds: 2 Save 5+ Movement 5" Bravery 6 +1 to hit with melee weapons, +1 to hit with ranged weapons, +1 attack with melee weapons

Chaos Warrior - Wounds 2, Save 5+, Movement 5", Bravery 6, +1 to hit with melee weapons, +1 attack with melee weapons

Orruk - Wounds: 2, Save 6+, Movement 5", Bravery 4, -1 to hit with ranged weapons, +1 rend with melee weapons

Aelf - Wounds: 1, Save 6+, Movement: 6", Bravery 6, +1 to hit with melee weapons, +1 to hit with ranged weapons

Duardin - Wounds 1, Save 5+, Movement 4", Bravery 6, +1 to hit with melee weapons

Armour - +1 to your armour save characteristic

Heavy Armour - +2 to your armour save

Stormcast Paladin Armour - +2 armour save, -1 movement (Stormcast Only)

Shield - Re-roll 1's to save

Bow Hit Attack 1,  4+, Wound 4+, Rend -, Damage 1

Unarmed Attack 1, Hit 5+, Wound 5+, Rend +1, Damage 1

Sword Attack 1, Hit 4+, Wound 4+, Rend -, Damage 1

Axe Attack 1, Hit 5+, Wound 4+, Rend -1, Damage 1

Hammer Attack 1, Hit 5+, Wound 3+, Rend -, Damage 1

Dagger Attack 1, Hit 5+, Wound 5+, Rend -, Damage 1

 

So an Orruk profile with a Bow, Sword (Choppa) and Armour merged together would have the following warscroll:

Wounds: 2, Armour Save: 5+, Bravery 4, Movement 5"

Bow Attack 1, Hit 5+, Wound 4+, Rend -, Damage 1

Sword Attack 1, Hit 4+, Wound 4+, Rend -1, Damage 1

Looks pretty much like an Orruk right? (Maybe a pretty boring and plain Orruk who doesn't have any special rules at this time).

 

I like it because it gives you more stats to play around with. More stats means you can do more interesting things with skills. And at the end of the day, this always results in a warscroll that can be used in game. You can upgrade your weaponry (or change weaponry), as you just need to re-combine your character profile with your new equipment profiles.

 

Also, the above stats are more for your regular mobs. You could create heroic profiles, but I actually think a more fun and interesting way is to allow heroes to get access to a certain number of upgrades. You could even go full DnD style, roll for a X upgrades, and pick Y of them. 

 I also like this idea, of a base stat, as I think it opens the AOS components up for more of a roleplaying experience in line with mordheim, since you could customize your gang more, and this would remove the feeling of fighting against brotherly clones, if you met a war band from the same faction as your own.

But.... You forgot to mention baseline stats for my faction: the dead.. Zombies would just be cheaper and worse versions of humans I'd guess. Ghosts would be anti rend... 

 

[someone2040]

34 minutes ago, Teletomas said:

 I also like this idea, of a base stat, as I think it opens the AOS components up for more of a roleplaying experience in line with mordheim, since you could customize your gang more, and this would remove the feeling of fighting against brotherly clones, if you met a war band from the same faction as your own.

But.... You forgot to mention baseline stats for my faction: the dead.. Zombies would just be cheaper and worse versions of humans I'd guess. Ghosts would be anti rend... 

 

Well, certainly one of my reasons for doing so was to introduce more mechanics. I wanted to introduce jumping into the game, but AoS doesn't have a stat the clearly relates to a models ability to perform those kind've actions. I also wanted to keep it simple, say a roll of 4+, but some races are more naturally inclined to running/jumping/etc. So as an example, all AELVES/SKAVEN could have a naturally skill called "Nimble - Add 1 to jump rolls".

 

As for other races. Yeah, I'm more inclined to think about Order as they're generally my favourite races. How far you go with your races, I think largely depends on how many mechanics (if any) you add into the game. Zombies could just be ****** humans (Wounds 1, Save 7+, Bravery 10, Move 4", Hit -2, Wound -2), but you'd probably add more interesting racial skills for them. If you introduced a stunned/knocked down mechanic into the game ala Mordheim, you'd probably also take a cue from Mordheim and make them un-stunnable. Or you could add something like "Drag them down - If there are more friendly models involved in the combat than enemy models, Zombies gain +2 to their hit rolls).

Ghouls could be Wounds 1, Save 6+, Bravery 10, Move 6" +1 attack modifier, then have special racial abilities. Cannibals : Gain +1 to hit for the remainder of the battle after wounding an enemy model. May not be equipt weapons or armour, always uses 'Claws'. (Claws are just standard sword profile).

[Teletomas]

@someone2040 

love it. I think zombies would definitely have a worse stating stat than humans though, but this would somewhat be offset by 'dragged down' or some other mechanic.

Unstunnable could be a possibility - if game goes that way.. Any way good ideas!